Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command

Scott,

I can't find page 858 in that document, is it the right one?

also the link s/b ?

ftp://ftp.sqlstandards.org/SC32/WG3/Progression_Documents/FCD/4FCD1-01-Framework-2002-01.pdf

Dave
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 11:20, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > > Are you against it just on grounds of cleanliness and ANSI compliance,
> > > or do you see more serious problems in letting it in ?
> >
> > At this point it seems there are two different things being tossed
> > about. I originally understood Dave to be asking for parens to be
> > allowed around individual target column names, which seems a useless
> > frammish to me. What Bruce has pointed out is that a syntax that lets
> > you assign multiple columns from a single rowsource would be an actual
> > improvement in functionality, or at least in convenience and efficiency.
> > (It would also be a substantial bit of work, which is why I think this
> > isn't what Dave was offering a quick patch to do...) What I'd like to
> > know right now is which interpretation Informix actually implements.
> >
> > I don't like adding nonstandard syntaxes that add no functionality ---
> > but if Informix has done what Bruce is talking about, that's a different
> > matter altogether.
>
> Tom, I was purusing the wild and wonderfully exciting new SQL
>
> (found here:
> ftp://sqlstandards.org/SC32/WG3/Progression_Documents/FCD/4FCD1-01-Framework-2002-01.pdf)
>
> ANSI TC NCITS H2
> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32/WG 3
> Database
>
> document to see what it had to say, and on this subject, and it looks like
> update is going to be supporing this same style we're discussing here.
>
> Look on or around p. 858 in that doc.)
--
Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cramer Consulting